Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lateral thinking

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) Cirt (talk) 00:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lateral thinking[edit]

The information seems to be from the primary source of the term, Edward de Bono, and not from sources independent of Edward de Bono. Others have used the term "lateral thinking", but the article seems to be de Bono's views on lateral thinking, which should be sourced to third party material, not de Bono's material, and can be included in Edward de Bono rather than a separate article. Suntag (talk) 07:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appologize for not making the nomination clearer. Others have used the term "lateral thinking", but there is no indication that such use is of a common topic. The present article is of significant length, all of which avoids using any of "dozen books on the subject on Amazon with at least four different authors", which supports the position that there is no indication that such use is of a common topic. Which brings us to the topic of the article: de Bono's views on lateral thinking. If there were Wikipedia reliable sources for the article topic, de Bono's views on lateral thinking could be sourced to third party material, which they are not. You might wish to keep an article about lateral thinking, but that is not the topic of this article. This article ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is coatrack for a tangentially related bias subject: de Bono's views on lateral thinking to the exclusion of the general topic. de Bono's views on lateral thinking can be discussed in Edward de Bono rather than a separate article. Improving the article's presentation of de Bono's views on lateral thinking would still make the article a coatrack. Also, this is not an improvement situation where the article was on a correct path and veered off that path. Since the article appears to lack desirable qualities to promote, improvement does not seem to be an answer. -- Suntag (talk) 18:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nomination does not actually specify the grounds for deletion. If the concern is notability or existence of reliable sources, I quickly found a dozen books on the subject on Amazon with at least four different authors. WP:ATF: If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. This is clearly the case here. Richard Pinch (talk) 11:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - I am seeing plenty of room for improvement, but nothing to indicate article should be deleted. This is a widely used and cited term. OP hasn't indicated any reason for deletion other then the article needs improvement. Turlo Lomon (talk) 12:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Silly nomination. De Bono's views on lateral thinking are obviously not tangential to the topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep well known term often used. Sticky Parkin 00:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Widely used term, plenty of sources listed even in its present state, but can always be improved. WP:BOLD applies here - if an editor feels an article is taking the wrong direction on a subject, then write a new article from scratch. AFD discusses the viability of an article, not its content. 23skidoo (talk) 01:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Highly notable topic. The article needs more balance, and what is there could be trimmed. ~ Ningauble (talk) 02:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.